- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by Green PaladinIf Gibbon 'harbours a grudge' against organised religion I would say that it is wholly justified. The despicable acts that have been committed by religious zealots over the centuries shouldn't be dressed up.
Gibbens certainly is a respected scholar. He wrote a significant volume on Roman history which centuries later, academics still rely on. But he harboured a grudge against Christianity and he brings a bias to all his works on early Christianity. This is universally acknowledged and any lecturer worth his salt would warn his students of this. ...[text shortened]... so abhorrent. No, the Church would never do something so evil as to appear to be evil![/b]
Gibbon harboured a grudge specifically against Christians. Of course, this had a tremendous impact on his work. It meant that he was unlikely to present a sympathetic account of Christians as many contemporaries did. That is why he is remembered still as a top historian. But he still brought bias to his work. He takes the account of Socrates (because he read only primary texts) and manages to twist it into a case of Jewish discrimination and hostility towards philosophy. The problem is that Socrates gives no hint that religion motivated the mob and Alexandria was renowned at the time for his libraries and education.
Besides Gibbon's account of Hypatia's death is very similar to Socrates Scholasticus' so his 'bias', if any exists, is irrelevant.
Gibbon's description of what happened matches, And so it should. That is basic. But Gibbon's interpretation is completely unsubstantiated.
Religious differences have long been a breeding ground for intolerance, discrimination and barbarism.
True, but there is no evidence that this case was motivated by religion. Believe it or not, but people can think of things other than religion. The tensions between Jews and Christians could easily have been an ethnic or class rivalry dressed up as religious.
Jews have been persecuted throughout history by Christians. Our good friend Cyril, who the Church thought so well of that they canonised him, led the charge against Jews by banishing them from Alexandria.
According to Socrates, however, Cyril was not persecuting Jews; he was reacting against their tumultuous behaviour and subsequent massacres. That is hardly a case of Christians persecuting Jews.
This mob's worldview is instantiated by organised religion. Of course the Church would not officially sanction something so abhorrent. No, the Church would never do something so evil as to appear to be evil!
How can you say that the mob's worldview is substantiated by Christianity? Do you have the psychic powers to read the minds of those in the past? The only contemporary record of events is given by Socrates and nowhere does he suggest that mob was sanctioned by the Church. To claim that the Church must have, because it will have done so in the future, is bias and shows a confusion about the linearity of time.
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KIf Gibbon's interpretation of history is so perverted by his bias against the Church as you say it's difficult to see how his work could be so celebrated by such "contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole."
[b]If Gibbon 'harbours a grudge' against organised religion I would say that it is wholly justified. The despicable acts that have been committed by religious zealots over the centuries shouldn't be dressed up.
Gibbon harboured a grudge specifically against Christians. Of course, this had a tremendous impact on his work. It meant that he was unlikely so in the future, is bias and shows a confusion about the linearity of time.[/b]
Gibbon's alleged crime was disrespecting, and none too lightly, the character of sacred Christian doctrine in "treat[ing] the Christian church as a phenomenon of general history, not a special case admitting supernatural explanations and disallowing criticism of its adherents" as the Roman church was likely expecting. More specifically, Gibbon's blasphemous chapters excoriated the church for "supplanting in an unnecessarily destructive way the great culture that preceded it" and for "the outrage of [practicing] religious intolerance and warfare". Gibbon, though assumed to be entirely anti-religion, was actually supportive to some extent, insofar as it did not obscure his true endeavour - a history that was not influenced and swayed by official church doctrine.
The criticism stemmed from Joseph Priestley [British theologian], Richard Watson [British Methodist], and the clergyman, Henry Edwards Davis. Not really surprising considering their coloured perspectives. His peers, those most qualified to criticise, enthused glowingly over his work while David Hume and Winston Churchill also greatly admired him.
He takes the account of Socrates (because he read only primary texts) and manages to twist it into a case of Jewish discrimination and hostility towards philosophy. The problem is that Socrates gives no hint that religion motivated the mob and Alexandria was renowned at the time for his libraries and education.
Socrates' account is not the only text of the death of Hypatia. The original sources for the history of Hypatia, besides the present chapter, are the letters of her pupil Synesius, and Philostorgius, VIII. 9. Cf. also Wernsdoff, de Hypatia, philosopha Alex. diss. 4, Viteb. 1748. [Taken from the link you provided]. Historians that allow bias to distort facts, such as fabricating a religious motive for the killing when there was none, would not be published let alone respected.
Gibbon's description of what happened matches, And so it should. That is basic. But Gibbon's interpretation is completely unsubstantiated.
Where is this evidence that it was not religiously motivated? Collins English Dictionary describes Hypatia as a "Neo-platonist philosopher and politician who lectured at Alexandria. She was murdered by a Christian mob." If the mobs religion had nothing to do with the murder why is it mentioned? As no1marauder said why was she taken to the church to be killed if there was no religious motive?
Believe it or not, but people can think of things other than religion. The tensions between Jews and Christians could easily have been an ethnic or class rivalry dressed up as religious.
Again, what are you basing this on?
According to Socrates, however, Cyril was not persecuting Jews; he was reacting against their tumultuous behaviour and subsequent massacres. That is hardly a case of Christians persecuting Jews. Banishment of an entire people from a city counts as persecution in my book.
How can you say that the mob's worldview is substantiated by Christianity? Do you have the psychic powers to read the minds of those in the past? The only contemporary record of events is given by Socrates and nowhere does he suggest that mob was sanctioned by the Church. To claim that the Church must have, because it will have done so in the future, is bias and shows a confusion about the linearity of time.
Why would I need psychic powers in order to understand the Christian worldview. In fact, josephw, on the first page of this thread makes it clear that the Christian worldview is able to entertain instances where burning someone alive may be acceptable: "I don't think I'm any better than anyone who would burn someone alive," and "I'm only suggesting that we all have the propensity for doing evil. Such as burning someone alive."
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Green Paladin[b]If Gibbon's interpretation of history is so perverted by his bias against the Church as you say it's difficult to see how his work could be so celebrated by such "contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole." [/b]
If Gibbon's interpretation of history is so perverted by his bias against the Church as you say it's difficult to see how his work could be so celebrated by such "contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole."
Gibbon's alleged crime was disrespecting, and none too lightly, the character all have the propensity for doing evil. Such as burning someone alive."
Because his research mostly dealt with the Roman Empire, not the Roman Church. His main success was actually in historiographical methodology, reading primary sources.
Historians that allow bias to distort facts, such as fabricating a religious motive for the killing when there was none, would not be published let alone respected.
1. Gibbon wrote at the beginning of the Enlightenment period with the Revolution of France in the backdrop. Fabrications against the Church were actually not uncommon at that time (indeed, such fabrications were used as propoganda for persecutions against Catholics, dissolution of monasteries, nationalisation of church land, etc; at the same time Voltaire was calling for the Church to be crushed and Robespierre was baying for blood); 2. Academic standards were very different 200 years ago. Before Gibbon, the English philosopher John Tolland had made the same claims.
Where is this evidence that it was not religiously motivated? Collins English Dictionary describes Hypatia as a "Neo-platonist philosopher and politician who lectured at Alexandria. She was murdered by a Christian mob." If the mobs religion had nothing to do with the murder why is it mentioned?
They were Christian (they were also Coptic). But that does not mean that their Christianity motivated them. According to Socrates, they attacked her because of some rumour of political intrigue. No where is it suggested that they attacked her merely for religious reasons (she wasn't even a Jew and her disciple you mention, Synesius, was a bishop). Socrates also labels their actions as un-Christian.
Banishment of an entire people from a city counts as persecution in my book.
Well, seeing that Jewish people were massacring Christians, it seems more like self-defence than persecution. ... Oh, I get, it is only persecution when the Christians do it.
Why would I need psychic powers in order to understand the Christian worldview. In fact, josephw, on the first page of this thread makes it clear that the Christian worldview is able to entertain instances where burning someone alive may be acceptable "I don't think I'm any better than anyone who would burn someone alive" and... "I'm only suggesting that we all have the propensity for doing evil. Such as burning someone alive."
1. Josephw is not a Catholic, nor a fifth century Alexandrian; he is an American Christian living 1600 years later. There is a huge difference in their religious belief, mentality and psychology. The fact is that Hypatia had Christian disciples, Synesius being one, and Christians, such as Socrates, condemned this attack. So: there is no evidence that the Church sanctioned the attack; Hypatia was not a Jew; she had Christian disciples; Christians condemned the attack. How does that in any way cohere with your view that the mob's worldview is 'instantiated by organised religion'? They were just freaks, not representatives of the psychology of organised religion.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by rwingett"Do you mean like when you send someone to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity?"
Do you mean like when you send someone to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity? Would that be the right condition? Or how about when you burn heretics like Giordano Bruno? Surely god smiled upon that little auto de fe.
Hey! I didn't write the Bible. I take no pleasure in the thought of anyone spending eternity in a lake of fire.
11 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI see. Anything but something written by a Christian must be ignored as biased. You seem to be misinformed about these nonexistent "polemics against Christianity":
Written about 100 years later by a guy who wrote Pagan polemics against Christianity. See a problem?
A large portion was preserved as a series of excerpts in the ninth century by the Christian writer Photius, who praised Damascius’ succinct, clear, and pleasing style, while being highly critical of him for not mentioning Christianity anywhere.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Damascius
How typical of you. The version you are relying on isn't a contemporary one as you claimed; it was written 25 years after Hypatia's death and was based on second hand info. See a problem? No, you don't because it reinforces your preconceived ideas.
I also see that you have conveniently ignored the point that if religion played no part in Hypatia's murder and if the Church had no part in it, why she was brought to a Christian church to be killed. Wanna give that one a shot?
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe so they could all take communion rights afterwards.
I also see that you have conveniently ignored the point that if religion played no part in Hypatia's murder and if the Church had no part in it, why she was brought to a Christian church to be killed. Wanna give that one a shot?
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"Not even once during all the Old Testament massacres that he ordered? Are you sure?"
Not even once during all the Old Testament massacres that he ordered? Are you sure?
Did he specify to Abraham the method of sacrifice he was to use upon his son?
Been through the book many times, never read about it.
"Did he specify to Abraham the method of sacrifice he was to use upon his son?"
Slash the throat. That's how sacrifices were made before burning.
Cut the throat and in seconds the animal was unconscious.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwDoes this illustration from the Brick Testament ring a bell?
[b]"Not even once during all the Old Testament massacres that he ordered? Are you sure?"
Been through the book many times, never read about it. [/b]
http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/family_stoned_burned/jos07_14-15.html